Ghideon

Ok! No problem! Why use a bomb? If you drop salt from an airplane into a storm about to turn into a hurricane the salt will spread quite fast anyway? I did not find any references to actual tests using lasers. It was one of the proposed ideas. If salt makes sense in theory or have any effect at all on weather I do not know, I have not researched that. You suggested that So you have to show why salt makes sense. The sources referenced at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_modification#Storm_prevention did not mention salt, my best guess* is that the test required a chemical that absorbs more water than salt. *) The sources hints that commercial interests were involved in the tests which of course could have impact on chemicals use. Note also that the results did not display conclusive evidence.

Then why are you asking us questions about this? So the question is if anyone has tried anything missing from all physics that will answer the questions. How should I know since you claim that: If you mean has anyone tried storm or hurricane prevention using chemicals? Yes, see my answer above.

I see practical challenges with a preemptive method. An analogy that may illustrate my point: Have you seen TV shows such as Storm Chasers? I'm not suggesting that the show has a specific scientific value but the very few episodes I've seen suggest it is not easy to know where a tornado is about to form. To a non-expert it seems like the hunters most of the time has to choose one of several possible areas and the outcome often seems quite random. What model do you have in mind that allow the preemptive method to find the correct spot and deliver explosive charges before it is too late? Some experiment* has ben done using other chemicals, not salt. The page may not be reliable and I have not checked all references. For instance NOAA** seems to disagree that any positive results at all were displayed. And again the scale of things is a problem. The experiment talks about one airplane while basic calculations** shows that hundreds of planes may be required. References *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_modification#Storm_prevention **) http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/C5d.html Again, as the idea is posted in speculations:

Ok Air pressure and air movements affect magnetic fields according to your idea? Then you can use a compass to measure that? Do you get lost if you navigate with a compass on a windy day?

Fine, but you stated that you wanted to change the pressure: Did you read the link I provided? Here are some approximate calculations. I'm not saying this is a method that works as means of limiting the size of hurricanes, the calculation is only provided as a comparison to show the scale of things. Category 5 hurricane: approximately 920 milibar**, equals 9,38 ton/square meter.* Category 2 hurricane: approximately 979 milibar**, equals9,98 ton/square meter.* Difference 0,6 ton/square meter. That is, for each square meter 600kg of air has to be moved to that area to equalise the pressure. Now approximate the low pressure area of a hurricane by using the size of the eye***. An average diameter of 48km gives an area of 1770 km2. That means that about 1 billion tons of air is required to “fill the whirpool” to change the pressure of a Category 5 hurricane to the pressure of a Category 2 hurricane. Even if you do not wait for a category 5 hurricane to form the amount of air you have to move seems quite large. You also have to know where to move it. I don't see how the idea is supposed to work practically. Can you provide some supporting calculations for your idea? References: *) https://www.convertunits.com/from/millibar/to/ton/square+metre **) https://www.thoughtco.com/hurricane-categories-overview-1435140 ***) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-pressure_area

What differential? What core?

To rise the air pressure, a huge amount of air has to be moved into the low pressure region of the weather system about to form a hurricane. A bomb is a blast of high pressure, I don't think that affects the barometric pressure. And even if pressure change succeeds there is still conditions that will allow tropical storms and other hurricanes to form, as already stated: The idea about bombing hurricanes seems to be quite common; Hurricane research division has a FAQ entry and calculations using nukes: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/C5c.html. Even if nukes re not the focus in the proposed idea the energy levels, barometric pressure and amount of air needed makes the use of bombs seem very unrealistic to say the least. Historical side note, here is a scan from 1959: THE USE OF NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVES IN METEOROLOGY, L. Machta, U. S. Weather Bureau with the introduction on page 54: reference https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015077324005. I have some trouble following the new things added to the topic. Salt content is lower than what? What core?

I'm no expert in this, but if you detonate a nuke where a hurricane forms, where will the nuclear fallout be carried by the wind? Or what kind of bombs are proposed? Always? There is no chance it makes the hurricane change its direction and hit a more sensitive region? Or make the hurricane move over more open water, hit land later and do more damage? In addition to @StringJunkys comment; what is accumulated energy of a weather system in the process of forming a hurricane? How large is the area you have to affect by the bomb if you do it early?

Point "a" and "b" seems to be an opinions, what evidence is available? Why does the idea use cubes and straight lines? Why not for instance spheres and curves*? When starting or stopping or turning, what frame of reference is used? When I try to follow your description ("Shapes and imagination throughout the universe") all I see is intricate curves, spiral patterns and spheres, not a anything resembling a cube. Example: If I stand still on earth I still follow the earth's rotation and earth moves around the sun and so forth. I Agree. As requested by @Strange, please give a proper defintion of Linear Time. Because and That seems to imply that Cubic Time is a collection of bad hoaxes? *)disclaimer, I do not believe time is a sphere, the analogy is presented as a comparsion

Hello @Owen Martin Ok! Your suggestions does not seem intuitive to me, even without using math i get: -If the goats were identical and not possible to tell apart, would that change the possibility to win a car? No -If instead of goats there are nothing behind the two doors so that an example is Car/Empty/Empty, would that change the possibility to win a car? No The 4 possible outcomes does not have the same probability. It seems you think it is a 50/50 chase of picking the car in the first selection. That does not seem intuitive since there is one car and two goats. I prefer to use math to show that 50/50 is incorrect. But I think it is can be fun exercise to see that by intuition a 50/50 answer seems incorrect. Try this thought experiment: First change the rules as a comparison. Let Monty do the first move and open a door showing one of the goats. Monty must pick a goat, he is not going to reveal the car. Your chance is now 50/50 to get the car from behind one of the two remaining doors. Compare to the original rule is that you must choose first. Monty must now show a goat, he is not going to reveal the car. Now is it intuitive that the outcome is not 50/50 in this case? Intuition may not give the correct answer, but it tells that 50/50 seems wrong since the rules are changed from the case above where the outcome was indeed 50/50. It does not seem intuitive that you have the same chance as in the case where Monty had to remove one of the goats first. Logic and "intuition" can help in the analyse but to get the correct answer I prefer math.

Hello. What is superimposed universe horizons? I am not able to find a definition using google.

I've briefly followed this from the sidelines and have, possibly a rather naive, question: Isn't the Kepler mission* exo planet search based on what @beecee says? The exo planets are already in the data, waiting for discovery. What does the statements about Neptune discovery say about the methods or results of Kepler mission; is methods or results, wrong, invalid, different? I know the methods for finding transiting exo planets differs from the search for Neptune, so the question above is intended more about "already in the data" than about Newton. *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_(spacecraft)

It's been a while since I did serous sys admin work in windows environment but here are a few followup notes. "Work" and "returned" trigger some thoughts: Was / is the computer attached to a corporate network? Is the account you try a local user account or a domain user account? What edition of Windows 10 is installed? Just want to make sure you are not stuck on using locked domain account instead of a local one. Yes, that should work. I have done that a few times (but not for win 10). Just a side note, if second computer is a laptop it may be easier to use a cheap USB Hard Drive Enclosure.

Speculation along the same line; what if another account online is a sock puppet of one @studiot have noted?

Good questions @Strange, I would like to add one to your list: Who or what have the ability to, or wants to, break the laws if enforcement is necessary? @PrimalMinister please also answer my other question in this topic; your view is valuable when discussion your new questions regarding simulations.

Do you have a reference?

Spatial Sequence Synesthesia?

How about completing the work you started started in other threads in this forum? That may bring you some fame at least within the science community.

Janus and others answered the same question in your other thread

Here are some short answers: Jupiter does not have enough mass to generate high enough pressure and temperature to start a fusion reaction. The lowest mass stars has about 80 times the mass of Jupiter if i remember correctly. An explosion requires a mixture of matter to ignite; hydrogen and oxygen for instance. A quick check at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Jupiter tells that there is not much oxygen available. I would not take that as a scientific fact without some proper references.

A lot of bad stuff have been on the internet for several years, @Strange's suggestion is absolutely correct. I tried google and found nothing of cosmological interest regarding the software. I didn't have time to read all details on the old thread in this forum but a few questions have been raised regarding the correctness of the model(s) in the software.

No, your idea needs something which is logically and physically impossible. It is the result one gets from analysing your explanations, definitions and drawings. Seems like we agree that your model and explanations has flaws? I agree and it was intended. It shows that posted explanations and definitions are not very usful when trying to understand your ideas about cosmology. The above statements make no sense at all without math and proper definitions. Thanks for the picture, unfortunately I have some trouble to see how your 2D calculations matches the drawings, please provide formulas and distances. I think it is your job to show the calculations but an exception might be ok in this case. I’ll do one case to bring the discussion forward. First, I assume the measurements of AB and CD are constant as you have stated earlier. Therefore I have added distances to make it easier to see. Blue colour are my additions. Let’s start with the middle case, big bang, where area of universe is 0. The diameter of the void=2 so radius of the void is 1. What kind of geometry are you using that allows a circle with radius=1 and an area=2? What is it that you try to show? I dont find it likely that you made a basic mistake in the calculation. I get the answer [math]\pi r^{2} = \pi*1*1 \approx 3.14[/math]. It is possible that you try to describe something else than an area you must provide exact definitions of all things you draw and calculate. Your pictures and calulations fails to show why your ideas is something to seriously consider. Do you understand why it is very hard to understand what you trying to describe? Ok! If it is not visible then it does not affect the geometry of the real world,? My conclusion from this: a physical distance measurement in the universe, or in the void, does not show the extra dimensions. The only distance that counts when moving is the distance in x direction in the 1D case. The y direction is a mathematical tool used to explain properties of the nature, it is not a possible to travel along the line in y direction. the above assumptions is one that I have had to make when analysing your drawings and statements about distance, now at least that seems to be confirmed. Can you please show how a seven-dimension space time is compatible with GR?

Ok! More images showing why the model has some strange geometry. 1: This is how the 1D version looks like in 2D in a naive version where a second dimension is added. There are two voids separated by a universe. I am sure this is not what is intended but I include this one as reference to show how easy it is to misinterpret how the 1D description applies to a 2D geometry. Top: 1D Bottom: naive 2D version. 2: Picture with the naive and incorrect version with expanding universe. This shows that it is easy to maintain the angles and measurements of the void when the universe expands. But the void is broken into two pieces. This is probably not what the model says. But I think the measurements of each void piece is according to the description; area is not changed, and anything at, or in, the void would not need to be moved to make room for the expanding universe. Left: original universe Right: an expanded universe. Next picture shows how I interpretative that the void should look like, in surrounds the universe on all sides. The void is continuous, you can travel around the universe and measure the distance. The proportions are not important, the important part is that it is one void surrounding a universe. This is not a new image, we agreed on this on in an early post. It is just included as a reference. Now lets try to create an image that complies to the rules I think the model states -The void has room for an expanding universe -The void does not expand -Use 2 dimensions since 1D fails to show the issues -The same distances must be measured from edge of the universe to a given point in the void even after universe has expanded. -Void area is not changed -Possibility to travel around the universe and measure the distance. Case I shows the starting position as a reference, defining distances to given points in the void, nothing new in this image. Case II is a failed attempt; you can travel around the universe and measure that the universe has expanded, the distances to the points in the void are the same but the area is larger. The points in the void, at or near the edge of the universe, is changed. Case III has correct measurements of X and correct area but is not continuous. Also the edges, seen from the void, ar not the same radius som some posts are moved or stretched/compressed. Case IV has correct X values and correct area and also no edge defects of the void. But now the void is not continuous, travel around the universe is not possible. Note: this is not meant to make fun of the model, it is my serious attempts at making sense of the descriptions of the model. Properties you have used to describe the void does not apply to a void that is geometrically possible under the circumstances given. So again, what kind of geometry does the void have? Can you show the math?

So the path, in the void, along the outside of the universe, will be longer and longer as the universe expands. That means that the void expands, otherwise stuff would have to be pushed away by force (accelerated). Please note that you said that if another universe located at point A stays at the same distance from B when the universe between B and C expands: No, that is not true unless you break the void apart*. Now it is your turn. If all of your statements so far are true, draw a 2D image where there is no expansion of the void, universes separated by distance X are still separated as they expand, the area of the void is unchanged and a traveler has to travel longer and longer distances to travel, in the void, along the edge of a universe. If it is not possible then your explanations are missing important properties, the geometry is non standard or, quite possible, the model just is not correct. *) If hard to understand I'll create a few pictures showing this.

I do not get this. Then my simplified picture failed to show the issue. Did you understand the part where the 1D model you used requires the void to be split in two parts that are not accessible without passing through the universe? I'll try to add a new picture later.